|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 09/11/2002 : 13:53:15
|
Terrorists on 9/11? Or the U.S. in the one year since then?
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 13:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Terrorists on 9/11? Or the U.S. in the one year since then?
Should I have made this a poll? Perhaps. I thought it might get more interesting play in this forum.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 18:25:04 [Permalink]
|
A valid, and yes, interesting question...
------------
The NASA Vision:
To improve life here,
To extend life to there,
To find life beyond. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2002 : 18:49:46 [Permalink]
|
It's amused me to hear Rumsfield talk about acceptable collateral damage and the like when that is precisely why we went into Afghanistan: al-Qaeda would use the same rationalization.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 00:15:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's amused me to hear Rumsfield talk about acceptable collateral damage and the like when that is precisely why we went into Afghanistan: al-Qaeda would use the same rationalization.
It's not collateral damage when you aim for the civilians. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 03:15:30 [Permalink]
|
If someone bombs a building, hoping to get the money inside and accidentally kills someone it's murder even if the perpetrator thought the building was empty. The U.S. knew that Afghanistan wasn't empty. They knew they would kill, directly and indirectly, thousands of people. It was a criminal act.
quote:
quote:
It's amused me to hear Rumsfield talk about acceptable collateral damage and the like when that is precisely why we went into Afghanistan: al-Qaeda would use the same rationalization.
It's not collateral damage when you aim for the civilians.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 09/12/2002 03:16:33 |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 19:17:22 [Permalink]
|
There is a fundamental difference between AIMING for civilians and civilians dying as an unfortunate side effect of war. If you don't comprehend this, there is no argument that will sway your mind. Not terribly skeptical of you. The argument hinges on this point. Deadlock. Boring.
The US leads the world in precision weaponry to specifically reduce collateral damage. Go knock every other country that doesn't have the capability to stuff bombs down air ducts. Toppling Saddam will kill far less civilians than he has already slaughtered himself. Mr. Huggable earned the moniker "Butcher of Bagdhad" for a reason.
Call it Roman Empire-esque expansionism if you like. Either way, the Iraqi people will be FAR better off if the US puts that prick on ice.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 19:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is a fundamental difference between AIMING for civilians and civilians dying as an unfortunate side effect of war. If you don't comprehend this, there is no argument that will sway your mind. Not terribly skeptical of you. The argument hinges on this point. Deadlock. Boring.
The US leads the world in precision weaponry to specifically reduce collateral damage. Go knock every other country that doesn't have the capability to stuff bombs down air ducts. Toppling Saddam will kill far less civilians than he has already slaughtered himself. Mr. Huggable earned the moniker "Butcher of Bagdhad" for a reason.
Call it Roman Empire-esque expansionism if you like. Either way, the Iraqi people will be FAR better off if the US puts that prick on ice.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through.
I have to agree...it is one thing to kill in battle, but to target civilians for little more than because they exist in a country they hate...that won't do. I just hope Dubya targets Saddam for the right reasons.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 03:38:02 [Permalink]
|
Of course there is and it has been shown clearly that the U.S. is aiming very well. They killed the infrastructure to make the civilians hurt, and then they forbade repairs to make the civilians die. They did it for years and they knew it was happening. They ruined the economy and put science and education on hold. All those things put together are genocide. This is just an escalation of that genocidal behavior.
quote:
There is a fundamental difference between AIMING for civilians and civilians dying as an unfortunate side effect of war.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 06:54:42 [Permalink]
|
No, the US and it's allies enforced UN resolutions and terms of surrender signed by Saddam himself. Diplomacy couldn't enforce international law, so force is required. Oh well, don't start wars you can't finish. Don't sign surrender documents you have no intention of complying with.
At any time in the past 11 years Saddam could have come in from the cold and complied with his surrender. The only thing keeping the Sanctions in place is Saddam. Simple compliance would have made the sanctions a footnote in history by now. But he has not once lived up to his end of the bargain he struck to stay in power in '91. He has WMD, not even a point argued by Scott Ritter (depending on which version of his story the is telling a reporter today) when he claims that a signifigant portion was destroyed.
Oh well, close enough huh? It's only a little biological weapons...... That's a dumbass point of view.
ANY WMD at anytime since '91 constitutes a breach of his surrender and violation of international (UN and Coalition) mandate. Any attempt to hinder inspectors in a violation.
Saddam is essentially on parole. And he has time and again violated that parole. Parole violators do not get a freebie because of their defiance, they get incarcerated.
I'd like to see the sanctions end too. But that is only possible if the conditions are met to remove them. Saddam has chosen not to honor his own signature on the surrender documents. The world can only respond to Saddams choice. Diplomacy has never worked with him. Not in '91 when he had 8 months to leave Kuwait and avoid the war. Not after the war when he could have complied with the terms of surrender. Not in '98 when he barred the inspectors altogether. We have allowed this glaring violation to stand for 6 years. Mostly because our last president was a pansy. Bombing him now is just housecleaning we should have done years ago.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 10:04:21 [Permalink]
|
No, the U.S. and its allies don't give a fat rat's ass about UN resolutions. No one has violated more resolutions than Israel.
quote:
No, the US and it's allies enforced UN
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 10:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Compliance had nothing to do with any sanctions. The goalposts kept changing.
quote:
At any time in the past 11 years Saddam could have come in from the cold and complied with his surrender.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 10:12:04 [Permalink]
|
You don't have much respect for the United States military. It seems they had something to do with making sure certain items didn't get in or out of the country for the last eleven years or so. Nothing went in or out the first five or six years during phase I of the genocide. Then after that, Clinton played games and drug his heels.
quote:
The only thing keeping the Sanctions in place is Saddam.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 11:26:07 [Permalink]
|
I don't know why I waste my time. So like about everyone else on SFN that bothered to try to explain the real world to you, Gorgo, I'm about bored with it myself. You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about, in this post or any other I pissed away my time in reading. So go argue with the other conspiracy nuts like yourself.
quote:
You don't have much respect for the United States military. It seems they had something to do with making sure certain items didn't get in or out of the country for the last eleven years or so. Nothing went in or out the first five or six years during phase I of the genocide
--We tried to enforce the sanctions, but everytime we did some little sissy like you cried about collateral damage and NWO expansionism, so we took very limited responses to Saddams constant violations. Considering the lenience he was shown following his defeat, Saddam has nothing to cry about. Clinton was a pussy too. He followed the exact same policy you seem to embrace- ignore the threat and let someone else deal with later, when it's worse.
Saddam surrendered to us during a war. He failed to comply with his terms of surrender. Therefore Iraq remains at war with the US and hostilities are our right.
We ended hostilities with Iraq (despite the occasional airstrike) in '91 far short of what we could have achieved, and most generously allowed Saddam to keep the throne. Many called this insanity at the time, only to be proven right now.
Considering your lack of grasp of world politics, I guess I'll have to state the painfully obvious; Saddam is only in power because the US wanted him there. We could have completely occupied Iraq with global approval in '91. We chose not to be expansionist.
He was an old ally of the US just a few years prior and could still be a valuable asset if he joined the civilized world. We had to punish him for the Kuwait aggression and make sure he didn't have WMD, but we allowed the madman to remain. We gave an old friend the benefit of the doubt. He squandered it for 11 years. The door to come in from the cold and rejoin civilized society was held open for 11 years. Simple compliance with surrender documents HE SIGNED, was all that was required. This proved too much for him.
We essentially paroled him for his crimes. He has violated that time and again. Now it's time to be held accountable.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 13:17:36 [Permalink]
|
As far as I can tell from the actions of the US AND other nations there is not much distinction between civilians and military unless someone is holding a press conference. The US has targeted civilians in the past and while it may have been justified it's still a fact.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2002 : 13:52:46 [Permalink]
|
I'll let this insanity stand as its own rebuttal.
quote:
I don't know why I waste my time.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
